Chairperson, Minister, thank you for your answers. I did note however that the original question relates specifically to land for commercial and residential purposes, but you chose to answer hon Smit in relation to agriculture. I will be glad if you can answer my question relating specifically to the original question. What I like to say is that we have seen ANC membership cards and proximity to power and even financial transactions being used as part of the criteria for land reform up until now. What will the criteria be into the future; and will the process be transparent?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon
member, I wouldn't want to enter into the debate on the observations that you are making. We have actually developed beneficiary selection policy, which will be made public, so that all of us would know if you are applying for land: What is the criterion that is being looked at when an assessment is made for you to be considered for any form of assistance by the state. You are correct, as I said earlier, that some of the follow-up questions are really new questions, but I have been very generous to answer them.
The issue is about state land disposal and the question was whether government has plans to do so. I said yes! What I tried to clarify
was that land redistribution is not just about agriculture; it is also about human settlements; and it is also about industrial development. The reality is that in our country, I think the focus - both in terms of beneficiaries, but also even in the psyche of the society - has been about agriculture.
This may be true because large-scale landownership is in the hands of those who are farmers and producers. Probably that is the reason why the focus has been around that land, but it doesn't mean land reform is only about agriculture. It is about reforming our landownership patterns, which include economic activity and which includes residential land. Thank you. [Applause.]
Question 140:
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon Smit. This relates to the matter of David Rakgase. The question as indicated is, why - if I may look at it correctly - have we taken the decision to withdraw the appeal against the court? It is important for me to say that it was proper for government not to pursue that matter. First and foremost, the matter of Rakgase relates to state land that was in the former homelands under the SA Development Trust. That land was known as
fallow land in terms of the Agricultural Credit Board, in particular.
What has then happened at the time when we looked at the various communities, particularly farmers, who were allocated that land to use on a lease basis, it was in the areas of the then Bophuthatswana, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, Makhathini Flats, Port St Jones and many others. The view of the government at the time was that these people for many years have been locked in a system where they can never be able to make meaningful investments in continuing with their agricultural development. So, a decision was taken that this land must be disposed to those individuals and they must be given the first right of refusal, particularly, those who were working the land.
So, the category of Rakgase falls in that system. The land size that was being used at the time, not only by Rakgase, was about 3000 plus hectares. When that offer was made, an objection came from some of the farmers in that area who said that it was not only Rakgase who was using the entirety of the land but he was using, yes, the majority. Therefore, they felt that the whole portion can't be sold to one individual. It was an issue that the department considered. Therefore, in the offer to purchase to Rakgase, the hectares was not
the whole of the 3000. That is where the contest became hence the process was never concluded. We appreciate that being the case. We said when the matter has served in court, and the court has ruled in the manner in which they had we will abide by the court decision and that is the stand. That is why we have decided not to pursue that matter. Thank you. [Applause.]